Eminent domain: No 'reform' needed

The backlash against a 2005 Supreme Court decision allowing a city in Connecticut to take homes for a private development project has seen 43 states enact laws aimed at neutering eminent domain.

Government taking private property for public use - a process called eminent domain - has always been a controversial issue because of our American bedrock beliefs in the sanctity of private property ownership. That's why the process has been utilized so seldom.

Efforts to "reform" eminent domain laws in Mississippi reached a fever pitch in 2009 when the Legislature passed a Mississippi Farm Bureau-backed reform package to restrict its use. Gov. Haley Barbour vetoed the legislation, saying it would hinder economic development efforts.

The Farm Bureau fought back. After a carefully orchestrated and highly effective petition drive, the group delivered more than 118,000 certified signatures of registered voters to the secretary of state's office last week in hopes of forcing a statewide referendum on eminent domain on the November 2011 ballot.

But the Farm Bureau's effort to limit eminent domain with a constitutional amendment clearly is an example of a political solution in search of a problem that does not exist. The government uses eminent domain to take private property for public use.

It is a basic tenet of American law that weighs individual rights against "the greater good" in communities.

The Farm Bureau has lobbied for eminent domain restrictions for years.

Most criticism has come from the national Institute for Justice, a group of libertarian lawyers who engage in litigation on eminent domain matters.

The Farm Bureau's initiative-and-referendum drive plays on unsubstantiated fears and ignores decades of legal precedent and the track record of the state's economic developers.

While it appeals to liberals voting to "protect the little man" and to conservatives voting in favor of limited government, eminent domain is a necessary tool of government to make sure that not only do citizens have suitable roads, water and sewer systems and schools, but that the taxpayers who use them have jobs and an opportunity to better themselves.

What is missing from Farm Bureau's narrative on eminent domain is a list of actual Mississippi eminent domain abuses the initiative purports to correct. Voters should ask proponents of this initiative for some examples of wild-eyed eminent domain land grabs by the state.

The fact is that litigation under existing state law has long been sufficient to protect the rights of property owners from eminent domain abuses.